Talk:Australia–New Zealand relations

Dubious statements

I have tagged:

The 1901 Australian Constitution included provisions to allow New Zealand to join Australia as its seventh state, even after the government of New Zealand had already decided against such a move.

as Dubious. I believe a citation needed for date of NZ decision - although they weren't signing up I understand NZ wanted to keep options open which is a slightly different sense than that conveyed by the article.--Matilda ^talk 20:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel this is a dubious statement, an unreferenced one, but there is no doubt that New Zealand could have considered becoming a part of the Commonwealth, it was part of NSW for a long time so its not that much of a stretch, i think the dubious tag should be removed and a replaced with a ref tag. Taifarious1 05:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the tag. My concern is the Constitution included provisions to allow New Zealand to join ... even after the government of New Zealand had already decided against such a move because although they weren't signing up I understand NZ wanted to keep options open which is a slightly different sense to that conveyed at present and the date of a decision is probably critical to getting the right inference.--Matilda ^talk 06:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You should take a look here and see if you think this is a suitable enough reference: [1], It does not offer a definitive date, but it states that New Zealand becoming a part of the federation became increasing undesirable in the 1890's before the commonwealth was established. It will be hard to find a pinpoint date to its actual decision but thats very close. Taifarious1 07:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Am modifying this statement from the political union section. "The distance between Wellington, New Zealand and Sydney, Australia, is 1,378 miles (2,218 km), making it seem even more obvious of Hall's remark." Irrelevant, as the capital of Australia at the time was Melbourne, and that was the context that this was refered to in. Nudge67 (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The capital of the time was yet to be determined and was going to be neither Melbourne nor Sydney. It would perhaps be more useful if you could find a distance that was 1200 miles that Hall was referring to - is it in fact that at their closest point NZ and Aust are 1200 miles apart? The distance to Perth is only marginally relevant as it is on the same continent - note also that WA was dubious about joining - the referendum was probably influenced by the number of gold diggers in the 1890s who were originally from Victoria - moreover WA did try to secede. --Matilda ^talk 20:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If Hall had been referring to Melbourne-Wellington distance he presumably would have said 1500 or 1600 miles --Matilda ^talk 20:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Things to be added

• Similarity
  • Flags
    • New Zealand: The current flag was introduced in 1869. It was initially used only on government ships, but was adopted as the de facto national flag in a surge of patriotism arising from the Second Boer War in 1902. To end confusion between various designs of the flag, the Liberal Government passed the Ensign and Code Signals Bill, which was approved by King Edward VII on 24 March 1902, declaring the flag as New Zealand's national flag.
    • Australia: The flag of Australia was chosen in 1901 from entries in a worldwide design competition held following Federation.
• Trade
  • Fireblight in apples - antipathy against imports from NZ done --Matilda ^talk 23:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

--Matilda ^talk 01:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

More Influential?

Resolved

 – Matilda ^talk 07:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The statement in the lead section The relationship between Australia and New Zealand is somewhat similar to that of other small countries with their much larger or more influential neighbour, i find, is a little bias, whos to say that one nation has more influene of eachother in the case of NZ and AUS, larger neighbour is a given, but more influential not so much. Some could say that NZ has had a much larger influence, i.e. giving women the vote, going nuclear free, Edmund Hillary, Earnest Rutherford, New Zealands position in Pacific Island nations, Fonterra, NZ-China FTA and even LOTR! These things dont mean anything to the way NZ and AUS relate to eachother and i dont think its fair to include that statement in the lead section, or anywhere for that matter. Taifarious1 02:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have issues with the lead paragraph beyond the question of influence. It currently reads:

The relationship between Australia and New Zealand is somewhat similar to that of other small countries with their much larger or more influential neighbour, such as Canada and the United States, although this is modified by the fact that Australia and New Zealand are both middle powers as far as global affairs are concerned. Some have defined the relationship as less one of friendship than of brotherhood, beset by sibling rivalry.[1]

The reference only supports the last sentence. The lead of Canada – United States relations is perhaps a useful comparison:

Canada – United States relations span more than two centuries, marked by a shared British colonial heritage, conflict during the early years of the U.S., and the eventual development of one of the most successful international relationships in the modern world. The most serious breach in the relationship was the War of 1812, which saw American invasion attempts on then British North America. Friendship would be solidified in the 20th century with the shared experience of the world wars and a close alliance during the Cold War.

I propose to remove the offending words and, borrowing from Canada – United States relations rewite as:

The relationship between Australia and New Zealand is somewhat similar to that of other neighbouring countries with a countries with a shared British colonial heritage, such as Canada and the United States. Some have defined the relationship as less one of friendship than of brotherhood, beset by sibling rivalry.[1]</

--Matilda ^talk 06:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it, i think its very effective and it cuts out all the speculation of the relationship between both nations. I propose we change it as the current lead is very speculatory and bias on a number of levels. Taifarious1 07:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Resolved

 – Taifarious1 ^talk 07:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Should the sentence: The only major exception to these privileges is for individuals with outstanding warrants or criminal backgrounds deemed dangerous or undesirable for the migrant nation and its citizens. be under the 'intra-migration' section, it seems a bit useless to be in the lead section and has no bearing on the relationship as a whole. Taifarious1 05:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

agree - makes sense - too fine a detail for the lead--Matilda ^talk 05:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I Have made the changes. Taifarious1 07:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A source for trans-tasman commentary

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4134551a26503.html from New Zealand's Sunday Star Times --Matilda ^talk 22:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

'Similarities' and 'Differences' have no place in an article about 'Relations'

As the existence of the first have no bearing on the quality of the last. The dimensions of relations would be, say .. commerce, diplomacy, sport, war (with each other, or as a joint enterprise), cultural exchange. 'Commonalities' may be a dimension of 'relations', but there is not a common currency. I will remove the 'sim' and 'diff' and work to include reference to entities which cover both nations eg. medical specialist bodies which offer accreditation or registration for specialists from either —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mestmaster (talk • contribs) 14:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Information on respective websites of their foreign ministries

These are added as external links and proposed as wealthy sources of information for the further development of the article. In other words, the official government 'take' on the relationship and significance of each country to each other, from either's perspective.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Prospect of currency union

• http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/speeches/0091114.html Pros and cons RBNZ perspective
• http://ideas.repec.org/a/cii/cepiei/2006-3tg.html Reference to relevant academic paper

CERprophet (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Differences section - what?

"Differences: The European population of Australia from early times contained a large Irish Catholic minority, many of whom were hostile to the British overclass, in comparison to New Zealand which was largely settled by English and Scots loyal to the British Crown. This resulted in some significant differences in attitude to authority; New Zealand never had an equivalent to the Eureka Stockade[citation needed] revolt, and republicanism has been less of an issue than in Australia. In this respect, as well as in stereotypes (see below), the differences between New Zealand and Australia resemble those between Canada and the United States, respectively."
Questions, questions: What British overclass was this, the Hollywood version? What was the attitude of the working class people in OZ from England, Scotland etc. How did they feel about the overclass? Did convicts transported from other parts of the British Isles like the overclass? Over in NZ what about the Scots who left home after the Clearances? And the comparison with the US, did the widely discriminated against Irish feel at home in the US republic when they got there? Bah! The section is a parade of stereotypes thrown together by a folk nationalist. Hakluyt bean (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Tomson's call to ban kiwi migration to Australia

Perhaps this should be mentioned, also there was recently another mention for political union: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/contributors/join-oz-new-zealand--its-for-the-best-20091112-ib8r.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.90.38 (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree these issues are worth covering. Please amend the article as you see fit. One of our mottos is Be bold!. You are probably also aware of our neutral POV policy, so don't add your own opinion about these proposals.-gadfium 07:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from 121.74.243.92, 2 April 2010

the statement that new zealanders can receive welfare benefits after living in australia for two years is incorrect and has been for a few years. New Zealanders must obtain an australian permanent resident visa to receive welfare benefits and must apply for this in the same manner as any other country. This is in addition to the 2 year waiting peroid that still remains. Source http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/factors/nz_policy.htm 121.74.243.92 (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to our attention - yes, that's definitely an error in the article, so I've fixed it. Orderinchaos 09:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Aus-NZ or NZ-Aus

"Why should Australia always go first?" is a compelling question. One answer is that it usually goes first in things like ANZAC, ANZCERTA, Aus-NZ Food Authority, SANZAR, and everywhere that the distinction can be made on List of Australia-New Zealand-related articles. Australia shouldn't always go first. It should only go first in published names and agreements such as the examples already given. Otherwise New Zealand can go first, or Australia. Being first named is being first thought of, but not being more important because neither is more important in the explanation of this subject matter. It wasn't an Australian who first successfully made it to the top of the world's highest mountain, it was a New Zealander and a Nepali working together .